Federal Cyber Crime Defense Attorney

Cyber Crime Defense for Federal and International Cases

Arkady Bukh represents individuals, technology professionals, executives and businesses facing federal cyber crime investigations and criminal charges.

Cybercrime cases may involve allegations of hacking, unauthorized access, computer intrusion, malware, botnets, digital fraud, compromised accounts, stolen credentials, payment-card information or the use of computer systems to commit other federal offenses.

Representation may begin before formal charges are filed and continue through:

Federal cybercrime investigations
Target letters and government interview requests
Grand jury subpoenas
Search warrants
Seizure of computers, phones and servers
Preservation and production of digital records
Pre-indictment negotiations
International arrest and extradition proceedings
Indictment and arraignment
Digital discovery and forensic review
Pretrial motions
Plea negotiations
Federal jury trial
Sentencing
Restitution and asset-forfeiture proceedings

A federal cyber crime defense attorney should examine more than the account, IP address or device identified by investigators. Important questions include who actually controlled the system, whether access was authorized, what the client knew, how the digital evidence was collected and whether the government can reliably attribute the alleged activity to a particular person.

Who This Attorney Represents

Arkady Bukh represents clients involved in serious computer and internet crime matters, including:

Individuals accused of federal cyber crimes
Technology professionals accused of unauthorized access
System administrators and developers under investigation
Security researchers whose work has been characterized as unlawful access
Business owners accused of participating in online fraud
Employees alleged to have misused company systems
Individuals accused of developing or distributing malware
Defendants in phishing and account-takeover cases
Individuals accused of possessing or trafficking stolen credentials
Clients charged with access-device or payment-card fraud
Businesses responding to search warrants and federal subpoenas
International clients facing U.S. cybercrime charges
Individuals whose computers, phones, cryptocurrency or accounts have been seized
Defendants accused of participating in a cybercrime conspiracy

The roles of alleged participants can differ significantly. A developer, system administrator, infrastructure provider, account holder, salesperson and financial intermediary may not possess the same information or exercise the same control.

The defense should focus on what the client personally knew, authorized and did rather than treating everyone connected with a server, account or online platform as equally responsible.

What Is a Federal Cyber Crime?

Cyber crime is a broad term covering offenses in which computers, digital systems, electronic accounts or the internet are the target, instrument or source of evidence.

Federal cybercrime allegations may involve:

Accessing a protected computer without authorization
Exceeding authorized access in circumstances covered by federal law
Obtaining information from a computer
Using unauthorized access to commit fraud
Causing damage to computer systems or data
Deploying malware
Operating or supporting a botnet
Stealing usernames, passwords or financial information
Trafficking in unauthorized access credentials
Interfering with business or government systems
Using computers to commit wire fraud or identity theft
Extorting a person or organization through threats involving data or systems
Participating in an agreement to commit computer-related offenses

Federal cybercrime is not one single offense. Prosecutors may rely on the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and add charges involving wire fraud, access devices, identity theft, conspiracy, money laundering, obstruction or other federal statutes.

The elements, evidence and possible consequences depend on the specific counts in the indictment.

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, commonly called the CFAA, is the principal federal statute used in many computer-intrusion cases.

Different parts of the statute address different conduct. Depending on the subsection, prosecutors may allege that a person:

Knowingly accessed a protected computer without authorization
Exceeded authorized access and obtained protected information
Accessed a computer to obtain information belonging to the United States
Accessed a computer to obtain financial or commercial information
Used unauthorized access as part of a fraudulent scheme
Knowingly caused the transmission of code or commands that damaged a protected computer
Intentionally accessed a system and caused damage
Trafficked in passwords or similar access information
Threatened damage, disclosure or continued unauthorized access for purposes of extortion

The government must prove the elements of the subsection actually charged. Access to a system, possession of credentials or use of technical tools does not automatically establish every element of a CFAA offense.

Important questions may include:

Whether the computer was covered by the federal statute
Whether the access was actually unauthorized
Whether the client had permission from an owner, employer or account holder
Whether the client exceeded a technical or contractual limitation
Whether protected information was obtained
Whether the client intended to defraud anyone
Whether damage or loss occurred
Whether the government calculated loss correctly
Whether the client knowingly caused the alleged transmission
Whether another person used the account or device

Authorization and Scope of Access

The meaning and scope of authorization may become a central issue.

A person may have legitimate access to a system because of employment, contractual duties, technical responsibilities, shared credentials or permission from an account holder. The dispute may concern whether the person used that access for an unauthorized purpose or accessed information outside the permitted area.

The defense may examine:

Written access policies
Employment agreements
User permissions
Administrator privileges
Prior instructions from management
Established company practices
Shared accounts and credentials
Access given by a customer or system owner
Whether technical restrictions existed
Whether the client was warned that access had been revoked
Whether access continued after termination
Whether the dispute is contractual rather than criminal

Violation of a workplace policy or website term does not necessarily establish a federal computer crime. The exact statute, type of access and government charging policy must be reviewed.

Good-Faith Security Research

Security testing, vulnerability research and penetration testing may involve access to computer systems that later becomes disputed.

The Department of Justice has stated that good-faith security research should not be charged under the CFAA.

Good-faith research generally involves access undertaken solely to test, investigate or correct a vulnerability, conducted in a manner intended to avoid harm, with the resulting information used primarily to promote security or safety.

The defense may examine:

The purpose of the research
The client’s communications with the system owner
Whether authorization was requested or granted
The scope of the testing
Steps taken to avoid disruption
Whether sensitive data was copied or used
How the vulnerability was reported
Whether the client requested payment or threatened disclosure
Whether the information was used to improve security
Whether the research served another commercial or unlawful purpose

Calling conduct “security research” does not automatically make it lawful. At the same time, technical testing performed in good faith should not be treated as criminal hacking merely because a vulnerability was discovered.

Common Federal Cybercrime Allegations

Unauthorized Computer Access

Unauthorized-access cases may involve allegations that a person entered an account, server, network, cloud environment or database without permission.

Evidence may include login records, IP addresses, credentials, device identifiers, commands, downloaded files and communications discussing the access.

The defense may dispute who used the credentials, whether permission existed and whether the technical records reliably identify a particular person.

Computer Intrusion and Hacking

Computer-intrusion investigations may involve claims that a defendant bypassed security controls, exploited a vulnerability, obtained administrator privileges or accessed protected data.

The government may rely on:

Server logs
Firewall records
Command histories
Malware samples
Account-creation records
Remote access logs
Files recovered from seized devices
Communications with alleged participants
Cryptocurrency or payment records

The word “hacking” is not a substitute for identifying the exact acts and statute involved. The defense should reconstruct what occurred technically and determine which actions can actually be attributed to the client.

Malware Allegations

Malware cases may involve software allegedly designed to:

Capture account credentials
Record keystrokes
Obtain payment information
Provide remote access
Alter system functions
Conceal unauthorized activity
Download additional software
Recruit computers into a botnet
Disrupt or damage systems

A person may be accused of writing code, modifying it, selling it, distributing it, installing it or providing infrastructure used by others.

The defense should determine the client’s actual role. Writing a general-purpose software component is different from knowingly distributing malware for criminal use.

Botnet Cases

A botnet is a network of computers or devices controlled through software and command infrastructure.

Federal investigators may allege that a defendant:

Developed the controlling software
Operated command-and-control servers
Rented access to infected devices
Used the network to distribute messages or malware
Obtained credentials from infected systems
Directed attacks through the network
Provided hosting or payment services

Technical evidence may identify servers and software but still leave questions about who controlled the infrastructure at a particular time.

Phishing and Business Email Compromise

Phishing and business email compromise allegations may involve fraudulent messages intended to obtain login credentials, redirect payments or cause employees to transfer money.

Evidence may include:

Email headers
Domain-registration records
Hosting information
Login history
Payment instructions
Bank records
Messaging data
Cryptocurrency transfers
Files recovered from devices

The defense should determine who created and controlled the email account or domain, who received the funds and whether the client knew the purpose of the communications.

Stolen Credentials and Access Devices

Federal investigations may concern passwords, payment-card numbers, account credentials, authentication tokens and other information used to access accounts or obtain value.

Related allegations may include:

Possession of stolen credentials
Sale or transfer of access information
Use of card data
Account takeovers
Creation of counterfeit payment cards
Operation of online marketplaces
Use of another person’s identifying information

The government must connect the client with the information and prove the required knowledge and intent.

Cyber Fraud and Online Financial Crime

Computer-related investigations often include wire fraud, bank fraud, investment fraud or money laundering allegations.

The government may claim that digital systems were used to:

Submit false applications
Redirect payments
Operate fraudulent websites
Obtain investment funds
Access financial accounts
Process disputed transactions
Conceal the source or destination of money

The cyber and financial components should be examined separately. Proof that an online account was used does not automatically establish that its owner knew about the entire alleged financial scheme.

Denial-of-Service and System Disruption

Investigations may concern traffic or commands allegedly intended to make a website, network or service unavailable.

The defense may need to analyze:

The source of the traffic
Control of the devices involved
Whether the event was an intentional attack
Whether testing was authorized
The duration and actual effect of the incident
The government’s calculation of damage and response costs

Cyber Extortion and Ransomware Allegations

Cyber extortion cases may involve allegations that a person demanded money in connection with encrypted data, threatened disclosure of information or threatened continued interference with a system.

These investigations may rely on:

Communications with the affected organization
Cryptocurrency transactions
Wallet attribution
Malware analysis
Server records
Negotiation messages
Data recovered from seized devices

A cryptocurrency transfer or online communication may require additional evidence before it can be reliably attributed to the client.

Online Harassment and Cyberstalking

Some federal cases involve repeated electronic communications, monitoring, threats or use of online accounts to intimidate another person.

The defense should distinguish protected or unpleasant speech from conduct satisfying the elements of the specific federal charge.

Relevant questions may include authorship, intent, context, identity of the sender and whether the communications contained a legally qualifying threat.

How a Federal Cybercrime Investigation May Begin

A cybercrime investigation may remain undisclosed for months or years while authorities collect digital evidence.

A person may first learn of an investigation after receiving:

A target letter
A grand jury subpoena
A request for an interview
A visit from federal agents
A search warrant
Notice that a provider disclosed account records
Seizure of computers or mobile devices
Suspension of an online account
Freezing of cryptocurrency or bank assets
Questions directed to employers or business partners
Notice that another alleged participant has been arrested
An international arrest or extradition request

By then, investigators may already possess records from internet providers, cloud platforms, email services, banks, cryptocurrency exchanges, employers and foreign authorities.

Federal cybercrime cases may involve the FBI, Secret Service, Homeland Security Investigations, IRS Criminal Investigation, Postal Inspection Service, inspectors general and specialized federal prosecutors.

Pre-Indictment Cybercrime Defense

Pre-indictment representation begins before formal federal charges are filed.

Depending on the circumstances, defense counsel may:

Contact prosecutors and clarify the client’s status
Identify the suspected statutes and conduct
Respond to grand jury subpoenas
Review requests for account and business records
Prepare the client for a possible interview
Advise whether an interview or proffer is appropriate
Review the scope and execution of a search warrant
Seek copies or return of essential business data
Conduct an independent investigation
Preserve favorable digital evidence
Interview employees and technical personnel
Retain a digital forensic expert
Analyze devices, accounts and logs
Review the government’s attribution theory
Present factual or legal information to prosecutors
Coordinate with foreign counsel
Prepare for indictment, arrest or voluntary surrender

Early representation cannot guarantee that an indictment will be avoided. It can help prevent unplanned statements, incomplete productions and loss of technical evidence that may support the defense.

Grand Jury Subpoenas and Record Requests

A grand jury subpoena may require testimony or production of digital, financial and corporate records.

Requests may cover:

Emails and messaging accounts
Source code
Server records
Access logs
Domain-registration information
Hosting records
Cloud-storage data
Customer information
Cryptocurrency records
Bank statements
Employment files
Security policies
Contracts and invoices
Communications with alleged participants
Computers and storage devices

A subpoena should not be ignored. Before responding, counsel should determine:

Which records are covered
Where the information is stored
Whether the client possesses or controls it
Whether information is encrypted
Whether privileged materials are included
Whether the company and individual employees have different interests
Whether the request can be clarified or narrowed
Whether the production may affect a foreign or parallel investigation

Potential evidence must not be deleted, altered, encrypted for concealment or transferred to prevent access after an investigation becomes known.

Search Warrants and Device Seizure

Federal agents may execute a search warrant at a home, office, data center or other location and seize:

Desktop computers
Laptops
Mobile phones
Tablets
Servers
External drives
USB devices
Hardware wallets
Authentication devices
Networking equipment
Written passwords or recovery phrases
Business and financial records

The physical seizure of a device and the later forensic search of its contents are important parts of the investigation.

Defense counsel may examine:

Whether the warrant was supported by probable cause
Whether it described the places and devices with sufficient particularity
Which offenses and categories of data were covered
Whether agents seized devices outside the permitted scope
Whether privileged information was captured
Whether several people used the same device
Whether business data can be copied or returned
Whether the forensic search remained within the warrant
Whether investigators obtained additional warrants when required
Whether the evidence was preserved correctly

A device may contain years of unrelated personal and commercial information. The existence of data on the device does not automatically establish who created it, downloaded it or understood its contents.

Digital Forensic Analysis

Digital forensic analysis may be used to recover, organize and interpret information from seized devices and online accounts.

A forensic examination may involve:

Creating a forensic image of a storage device
Calculating hash values
Recovering deleted files
Reviewing file metadata
Examining browser and search history
Reconstructing login activity
Identifying connected devices
Reviewing cloud synchronization
Examining email and messaging databases
Analyzing malware
Reviewing cryptocurrency wallet files
Building an activity timeline
Identifying user profiles
Examining remote-access software
Reviewing system and application logs

The government’s forensic report is an interpretation of the collected data. A defense expert may test whether the methods, assumptions and conclusions are reliable.

Attribution of Digital Activity

Attribution is often one of the most important issues in a cybercrime case.

Investigators may attempt to connect a person with online activity through:

IP addresses
Email accounts
Usernames
Online aliases
Device identifiers
Browser fingerprints
Telephone records
Payment information
Cryptocurrency addresses
Location records
Files recovered from devices
Communications with other participants

None of these indicators necessarily resolves identity by itself.

An IP address may be shared by a household, workplace or public network. An account may be compromised. Credentials may be passed to another person. A server may be rented through an intermediary. A device may be remotely controlled or infected with malware.

The defense may examine whether:

Other people had physical access to the device
Credentials were shared
The account was compromised
Remote-access tools were installed
Malware could have generated the activity
The IP address was dynamic
A VPN, proxy or hosting service was involved
Time-zone conversions were accurate
Logs from different systems were correctly synchronized
The government has confused account ownership with actual use

Metadata, Logs and Timelines

Cybercrime cases frequently depend on reconstructing a timeline from several technical sources.

The government may compare:

File creation and modification times
Server logs
Email timestamps
Login records
Telephone data
Bank transfers
Cryptocurrency transactions
Travel records
Search histories
Messages between alleged participants

Timestamps may use different time zones and may be affected by device settings, server configuration or software behavior.

A defense analysis should determine:

Which clock generated each timestamp
Whether daylight-saving changes were considered
Whether the device clock was accurate
Whether files were copied from another system
Whether cloud synchronization changed metadata
Whether a backup restored older files
Whether the government’s events are ordered correctly

An inaccurate timeline can change the interpretation of communications, transfers and alleged access.

Deleted and Encrypted Data

Investigators may argue that deletion or encryption shows an effort to conceal evidence.

That conclusion is not automatic.

Files may be deleted through ordinary software operation, system maintenance, storage limitations or routine security practices. Encryption is commonly used to protect personal and business information.

The defense may examine:

When deletion occurred
Whether it was automatic
Whether the client knew about the investigation
Whether backups preserved the information
Whether encryption was standard practice
Who controlled the encryption keys
Whether investigators accurately recovered the files
Whether fragments have been interpreted correctly

Attempts to destroy evidence after learning of an investigation may create separate legal problems. Relevant data should be preserved.

Cloud and Provider Evidence

A large part of the evidence may come from third-party providers rather than a seized device.

The government may obtain:

Subscriber records
Login history
Stored emails
Cloud files
Account-recovery information
Payment records
IP logs
Communications metadata
Content preserved by a provider
Records from domain and hosting companies

Provider records may have limitations. Retention periods differ, logs may be incomplete and an account may have been accessed by several people.

The defense should compare provider records with the device evidence and determine whether the data actually identifies the person who performed the disputed activity.

International Digital Evidence

Federal cybercrime investigations frequently cross national borders.

The case may involve:

A client located outside the United States
Servers hosted in another country
Foreign internet or hosting providers
Overseas bank or cryptocurrency accounts
Evidence collected by foreign police
Witnesses in several jurisdictions
Translated communications
Extradition proceedings
International evidence requests

The defense may need to examine:

S. jurisdiction over the alleged conduct
The location of the affected computer
Where commands were sent or received
How foreign evidence was obtained
Whether records were properly authenticated
Whether translations are accurate
Whether the chain of custody is complete
Whether foreign investigators followed applicable procedures
Whether the evidence relates to the client or another user
Whether the charges comply with an extradition decision

Coordination between U.S. counsel and attorneys in the country where the client or evidence is located may be necessary.

Cryptocurrency and Cybercrime Evidence

Cryptocurrency transactions may appear in cases involving alleged online fraud, malware, extortion, stolen credentials or payment for digital services.

Investigators may review:

Blockchain transactions
Exchange records
Wallet addresses
Identification information
Login history
IP addresses
Wallet files recovered from devices
Messages discussing payments
Conversion into traditional currency
Transfers through several platforms

A blockchain record shows movement between addresses. It does not independently prove who controlled each address or why the transaction occurred.

The defense may examine:

Who controlled the private keys
Whether several people had access
Whether an exchange account was compromised
Whether the funds had a legitimate source
Whether one transaction has been counted more than once
The valuation used by investigators
Whether a wallet attribution is based on assumptions
Whether the payment can be connected to the alleged offense

Evidence Used in Federal Cybercrime Cases

The government may rely on:

Search-warrant evidence
Forensic images of devices
Server and provider logs
Emails and online messages
Source code and malware samples
IP addresses and device identifiers
Domain and hosting records
Bank and cryptocurrency transactions
Recorded communications
Statements made during interviews
Testimony from technical experts
Testimony from employees or business partners
Cooperating witnesses
Evidence collected in foreign countries
Undercover communications
Government-created forensic timelines

The defense should review the underlying evidence rather than relying solely on summaries, charts or screenshots prepared by investigators.

Possible Cybercrime Defense Strategies

There is no universal defense for every computer crime case. The strategy depends on the statute, technical evidence and client’s actual role.

The Access Was Authorized

The client may have had permission from an employer, customer, account holder or system owner.

The dispute may concern contractual terms or internal policy rather than access without authorization.

Lack of Knowledge or Intent

The client may not have known that the access, software or information would be used unlawfully.

Knowledge and intent are especially important when the client provided technical, hosting or payment services to another person.

Mistaken Digital Attribution

The government may have connected the wrong person to an IP address, account, alias, wallet or device.

Ownership of an account or computer does not prove personal responsibility for every action associated with it.

Shared or Compromised Credentials

Several people may have used the same account, device or administrator credentials.

The account may also have been compromised by another person.

Remote Access or Malware

Remote-access tools or malicious software may allow someone else to control a device without the owner’s knowledge.

Forensic review may identify activity inconsistent with the client’s physical location or normal use.

Good-Faith Security Research

The conduct may have involved legitimate testing, investigation or reporting of a vulnerability rather than criminal intrusion.

The purpose, scope, disclosure process and steps taken to avoid harm are important.

Legitimate Software or Infrastructure

Software, hosting and security tools can have lawful and unlawful uses.

The government must prove the client’s knowledge and involvement rather than relying only on the fact that another person used the service unlawfully.

No Agreement to Join a Conspiracy

A person may communicate with alleged participants or provide ordinary services without agreeing to participate in a cybercrime scheme.

Association and technical assistance do not automatically establish a criminal agreement.

Incomplete or Unreliable Forensic Analysis

The government’s analysis may rely on incomplete logs, incorrect time conversions, unsupported attribution or improperly interpreted data.

A defense expert may identify alternative explanations.

Breaks in Chain of Custody

The defense may examine whether devices and data were properly collected, stored, copied and documented.

Unexplained changes or gaps can affect reliability.

Search Outside the Scope of the Warrant

Investigators may have searched devices, accounts or categories of information beyond what the warrant authorized.

The defense may seek suppression when evidence was obtained in violation of constitutional or statutory requirements.

Improperly Obtained Statements

Statements may be challenged when they were obtained in violation of the client’s rights or presented without the surrounding context.

Unreliable Cooperating Witnesses

An alleged participant may cooperate with prosecutors to obtain reduced charges or a lower sentence.

The witness’s statements should be compared with original communications and technical evidence.

No Proven Damage or Incorrect Loss Calculation

The government may overstate investigation costs, restoration expenses, lost revenue or the number of affected systems.

Loss and damage calculations should be supported by records and connected to the charged conduct.

Lack of Federal Jurisdiction

In an international or unusual case, the defense may examine whether the government has established the required connection to a protected computer, interstate commerce or the United States.

Related Federal Charges

Cybercrime allegations may be charged together with:

Wire fraud
Bank fraud
Access-device fraud
Identity theft
Aggravated identity theft
Conspiracy
Money laundering
Extortion
Trade-secret theft
Copyright or intellectual-property offenses
False statements
Obstruction of justice
Sanctions or export-control violations
Criminal forfeiture allegations

Each count has separate legal elements. The indictment should not be treated as one general accusation of “hacking.”

Related practice areas include Federal Fraud Defense, Financial Crimes Defense, Identity Theft Defense, Credit Card Fraud Defense, Money Laundering Defense, Cryptocurrency Criminal Defense and Extradition Defense.

Indictment and Federal Court Proceedings

If a federal grand jury returns an indictment, the case may proceed through:

Arrest or voluntary surrender
Initial appearance
Detention or release proceedings
Arraignment
Discovery
Digital evidence review
Pretrial motions
Plea negotiations
Trial
Sentencing

An indictment is a formal accusation and does not establish guilt.

Cybercrime discovery can include terabytes of device images, server data, provider records, source code, communications, financial records and evidence obtained from other countries.

The defense may need technical systems to review and organize the discovery while maintaining confidentiality and data security.

Pretrial Motions

Depending on the case, the defense may file motions concerning:

The legality of a search warrant
The scope of a device or account search
The seizure of unrelated devices
The duration of forensic examination
The attribution of electronic records
Statements made during interviews
Admission of expert testimony
Authentication of digital evidence
Evidence collected abroad
Severance of unrelated defendants or counts
Production of underlying forensic data
Return of property
Suppression of unlawfully obtained evidence

Technical evidence is not automatically admissible merely because it was produced by software or presented by a government expert.

Plea Negotiations and Federal Trial

A plea proposal should be considered only after the digital evidence, possible defenses and sentencing consequences have been evaluated.

Negotiations may concern:

The charges that will remain
The factual basis for a plea
The client’s actual role
The number of affected systems or victims
Alleged loss and damage
Restitution
Forfeiture
Cooperation provisions
Sentencing recommendations
Restrictions involving computers or internet access
Dismissal of related counts

If an acceptable resolution cannot be reached, the defense must prepare for trial.

At trial, prosecutors must prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense may challenge attribution, authorization, intent, forensic methodology, witness credibility, alleged damage and the interpretation of technical records.

Potential Consequences

There is no single penalty for “cybercrime.” The possible consequences depend on the specific statutes, number of counts, intent, alleged damage, financial loss, role of the defendant and prior record.

They may include:

Federal imprisonment
Criminal fines
Restitution
Forfeiture of computers, accounts, cryptocurrency or other property
Supervised release
Restrictions involving particular devices or systems
Employment and professional consequences
Civil litigation
Regulatory proceedings
Immigration consequences for non-U.S. citizens
Extradition proceedings for clients outside the United States

Statements that every cybercrime conviction can lead to life imprisonment should not be used. Some federal cyber offenses carry significant maximum penalties, but the applicable range depends on the actual charges and circumstances.

How Cybercrime Allegations Can Affect a Business

A company may experience serious disruption before the criminal case is resolved.

Possible effects include:

Seizure of computers and servers
Loss of access to business data
Frozen bank or cryptocurrency accounts
Interruption of payment processing
Loss of customers and business partners
Contract termination
Civil claims
Regulatory inquiries
Data-preservation obligations
Employee departures
Insurance disputes
Costs of responding to subpoenas
Costs of forensic review
Criminal charges against executives or the company

The defense strategy should address both the federal investigation and the organization’s ability to continue lawful operations.

Internal Company Review

A business that receives a subpoena or search warrant may need to conduct an internal review.

The review may include:

Preserving devices, logs and accounts
Identifying relevant employees
Reviewing administrator access
Examining security and authorization policies
Determining who controlled the disputed infrastructure
Reviewing communications with customers and contractors
Identifying compromised credentials
Investigating unauthorized activity by outsiders
Evaluating the company’s relationship with individual employees
Coordinating with forensic specialists

An internal investigation should be planned carefully because reports, interviews and technical findings may raise privilege and disclosure issues.

Bukh Law Firm Cyber Crime Defense Services

Federal Cybercrime Investigation Defense

Representation during FBI, Secret Service, Homeland Security and other federal investigations.

Pre-Indictment Representation

Communication with prosecutors, subpoena responses, interview preparation and presentation of information before formal charges.

Hacking and Unauthorized-Access Defense

Defense in cases involving alleged computer intrusion, account access and violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.

Device-Seizure and Search-Warrant Review

Review of warrants, seized devices, privileged information and the permitted scope of forensic examination.

Digital Forensic Analysis

Work with forensic professionals to examine device images, metadata, logs, deleted files, malware and account activity.

Cyber Fraud Defense

Representation in matters involving phishing, online financial fraud, compromised accounts and electronic transactions.

Malware and Botnet Defense

Defense of individuals accused of developing, distributing, controlling or supporting malicious software and botnet infrastructure.

Access-Device and Identity-Theft Defense

Representation in cases involving payment-card information, passwords, credentials and personal identifying information.

Cryptocurrency Evidence Review

Analysis of blockchain records, exchange accounts, wallets, digital payments and asset-seizure claims.

International Cybercrime Defense

Coordination of U.S. federal defense with foreign counsel, international evidence and extradition proceedings.

Federal Court Representation

Defense during indictment, arraignment, detention proceedings, motions, negotiations, trial and sentencing.

Restitution and Forfeiture Defense

Review of alleged losses, seized devices, cryptocurrency, accounts and government forfeiture claims.

Selected Cybercrime Case Results

The firm’s published case results include the following cybercrime-related matters.

Oleg Nikolaenko

Oleg Nikolaenko was prosecuted in connection with the Mega-D botnet, which was used to distribute a substantial percentage of worldwide spam.

He faced a possible five-year prison term. The court sentenced him to the time he had already served, slightly more than 27 months, and he was released.

Vladislav Khorokhorin

Vladislav Khorokhorin was prosecuted in federal cases involving stolen credit and debit card information, online forums and access-device fraud.

He was extradited from France to the United States. The cases pending in two federal districts were consolidated, and he later received a sentence of 88 months in federal prison and was ordered to pay $125,739 in restitution.

Aleksandr Panin

Aleksandr Panin was prosecuted for his role in developing and distributing the SpyEye malware.

He pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire and bank fraud. The court sentenced him to nine years and six months in federal prison, followed by supervised release.

Past results do not guarantee a similar result in another case. Every cybercrime investigation depends on the charges, technical evidence, client’s role and procedural history.

What to Do During a Federal Cybercrime Investigation

Do not destroy, alter, conceal or remotely delete potentially relevant digital evidence.

Preserve:

Computers and mobile devices
Emails and messages
Source code
Server and access logs
Cloud records
Account-recovery information
Domain and hosting records
Contracts and authorization documents
Bank and cryptocurrency records
Communications with customers and technical personnel
Evidence of compromised accounts
Information showing the client’s location and device use

Before speaking with federal agents or producing records, determine:

Which agencies are involved
Whether you are considered a witness, subject or target
Which accounts, systems and dates are under review
Whether devices have been seized
Whether the company and individual employees have different interests
Whether an international investigation or extradition request is involved
Whether another alleged participant is cooperating

Arkady Bukh represents clients before and after federal cybercrime charges are filed, including during investigations, device seizures, grand jury proceedings, extradition, federal trials and sentencing.

Federal Cyber Crime Defense FAQ

Is Arkady Bukh a cyber crime lawyer?

Yes. Arkady Bukh represents individuals and businesses in federal cases involving computer intrusion, unauthorized access, cyber fraud, malware, digital evidence and related allegations.

What type of attorney handles federal hacking charges?

A federal cyber crime lawyer or hacking defense attorney handles investigations and prosecutions involving the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, digital evidence and related federal charges.

When should I contact a cybercrime defense lawyer?

Legal advice may be needed after receiving a target letter, subpoena, interview request, search warrant or notice that devices or online accounts have been seized.

Does an IP address prove who committed a cybercrime?

Not by itself. An IP address may identify a network connection, but several people may use the network or account. The device, credentials, timestamps and other evidence must be examined.

Can federal agents seize all computers and phones in a home or office?

Agents may seize devices covered by a valid warrant. The defense may review whether the warrant was sufficiently specific and whether the seizure and later forensic search remained within its authorized scope.

What happens to a seized computer?

Investigators may create a forensic image and analyze data within the scope of the warrant. The defense may seek access to the forensic evidence, challenge the search or request copies or return of essential business data.

Can deleted files be recovered?

Sometimes. Forensic tools may recover deleted data or fragments, but the reliability, context and interpretation of the recovered information should be examined.

Is encryption evidence of a crime?

No. Encryption is commonly used for legitimate privacy and security purposes. Its meaning depends on the circumstances and other evidence.

Can a security researcher be charged with hacking?

The answer depends on authorization, purpose and conduct. DOJ policy states that good-faith security research should not be charged under the CFAA, but research undertaken to cause harm, extort a system owner or facilitate unlawful conduct may be treated differently.

Can an employee be charged for accessing an employer’s computer?

Potentially, depending on the access, authorization and charged statute. A policy or employment dispute does not automatically establish a federal offense.

Can a developer be charged because someone used the software illegally?

The government must prove the elements of the charged offense, including the developer’s knowledge and intent where required. The fact that software can be used illegally does not automatically make its developer criminally responsible.

What evidence is used in a cybercrime prosecution?

Evidence may include devices, forensic images, logs, IP records, online accounts, source code, provider records, messages, payments, cryptocurrency transactions and witness testimony.

Can foreign digital evidence be used in a U.S. case?

Yes. Federal cases may include evidence obtained from foreign providers or law-enforcement agencies. The defense may examine authentication, translation, collection procedures and chain of custody.

Can a person outside the United States face federal cybercrime charges?

Yes. U.S. prosecutors may bring charges involving foreign defendants when they claim the conduct has the required connection to the United States. Jurisdiction and extradition should be examined in each case.

Does a federal indictment mean the client is guilty?

No. An indictment is a formal accusation approved by a grand jury. The government must still prove each charge beyond a reasonable doubt unless the case is otherwise resolved.